anticipatory bail = Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for anticipatory bail - when accused is also belongs to SC community- prima faice, SC and SC Act not applies, other sections are bailable offences - hence accused are entitled for anticipatory bail = GETTAM SRINIVASA RAO & 4 OTHERS VS THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY P.P., HYD. = Published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRLP&mno=3401&year=2013

Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989  and for anticipatory bail - when accused is also belongs to SC community- prima faice, SC and SC Act not applies, other sections are bailable offences - hence accused are entitled for anticipatory bail =

The petitioners seek for grant of anticipatory bail. They allegedly committed the offences under Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 

A.1 and A.4 are members of the Scheduled Caste and that the provisions of the SC/ST Act do not apply to them. He has produced the caste certificates of A.1 and A.4 showing that they belong to SC community.  Consequently, no prima facie case can be made out against A.1 and A.4 under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 

Once the offence under the provisions of the SC & ST Act is not made out, the question is whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.  The offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC are bailable.  The provision of anticipatory bail, consequently, does not lie.  Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to grant anticipatory bail, through this petition.

CRLP 3401 / 2013

CRLPSR 11446 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT GETTAM SRINIVASA RAO & 4 OTHERS   VS THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY P.P., HYD. PET.ADV. : NAGESHWAR RAO PAPPU RESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SUBJECT: U/s.438 Cr.p.c Anticipatory Bail DISTRICT:  KRISHNA

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

Crl. Petition No.3401 of 2013

Date: 22.04.2013

Between:

Gettam Srinivasa Rao

and 4 others.                                                        .. Petitioners/

                                                                                A.1 to A.5

                   AND

The State of A.P.,

rep.by Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Hyderabad.                                       .. Respondent/

                                                                                Complainant

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

Crl. Petition No.3401 of 2013

ORDER:

          The petitioners seek for grant of anticipatory bail. They allegedly committed the offences under Sections 506 and 509 read with 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 
[the SC/ST Act, for short]. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act specifically proscribes grant of anticipatory bail.

2.       The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the prosecution prima facie failed in establishing the case under the provisions of the SC/ST Act and consequently, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 

3.       I may first of all point out that the offences other than the offences under the provisions of the SC/ST Act are so minor that it would be advisable to enlarge the petitioners on bail, as both the offences are bailable.  However, as the petitioners allegedly committed the offence u/s.3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, it becomes necessary to consider whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail or otherwise.

4.       The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that A.1 and A.4 are members of the Scheduled Caste and that the provisions of the SC/ST Act do not apply to them. He has produced the caste certificates of A.1 and A.4 showing that they belong to SC community.  Consequently, no prima facie case can be made out against A.1 and A.4 under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 
The question is whether a prima facie case is made out against A.2, A.3 and A.5 under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 

5.       The allegation against all the petitioners is that the petitioners misbehaved with the de facto complainant making invitation to her by attacking her in indecent manner.  The alleged offence at best is the offence u/s.354 IPC but not one under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.  It is also alleged by the de facto complainant that the accused alleged that the de facto complainant belongs to ST community and questioned whether the de facto complainant would like to continue in the job or otherwise.  This is all what the petitioners stated regarding the community of the de facto complainant.

6.       I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged comment of the petitioners against the de facto complainant is not an abuse of the de facto complainant touching upon the community, so much so, the offence u/s.3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST Act prima facie is not made out.

7.       Once the offence under the provisions of the SC & ST Act is not made out, the question is whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.  The offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC are bailable.  The provision of anticipatory bail, consequently, does not lie.  Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to grant anticipatory bail, through this petition.

8.       Consequently, the Criminal Petition is disposed of holding that the offence u/s.3 (1)(x) of SC & ST Act prima facie is not made out against the petitioners.  However, liberty is given to the petitioners to invoke due process of law for grant of bail otherwise.

                                                                           _______________

                                                                           K.G. Shankar, J

Date: 22.04.2013

Isn

Partly allowed - Direction to lower court to release on bail the 2nd petitioner against whom anticipatory bail is granted -Anticipatory bail = Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. The 2nd petitioner, who is A3, is directed to surrender before the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur,YSR Kadapa District, within two weeks from today. On such surrender, the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur shall enlarge the 2nd petitioner/A3 on bail on a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in a like sum to the satisfaction of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur.

CRLP 4754 / 2013

CRLPSR 15505 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT ITTA BHULAKSHMI DEVI, YSR KADAPA & ANR.,   VS STATE OF AP., REP. PP., HYD., PET.ADV. : ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY RESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SUBJECT: U/s.438 Cr.p.c Anticipatory Bail DISTRICT:  CUDDAPAH

published in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/crlp/crlp_4754_2013.html

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

: PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE: K.G.SHANKAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4754 of 2013

Between:

1. Itta Bhulakshmi Devi, W/o. Guruswamy
2. Pujari Veeramma, W/o. Pedda Subbanna

…Petitioners

                                       (Accused 2 & 3 in Cr.No. 72/2013

                 of II Town P.S. Proddatur Town,

                        YSR Kadapa Dist)

AND

The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

                                    … Respondent/Complainant

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 & 3 on bail in the event of Arrest in Crime No. 72/2013 of II Town Police Station, Proddatur Town, YSR Kadapa District.

            The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following

ORDER:

“ The petitioners are A2 and A3.  They seek for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.72 of 2013 on the file of II Town Police Station, Proddatur.  

            While Crime No.72 of 2013 is in respect of offences under Sections 353, 354 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C., there cannot be an offence under Section 354 I.P.C. against the petitioners, who are women.   The rest of the offences are triable by Magistrate of First Class.  Consequently, it is more appropriate for the petitioners to  surrender before the Learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur and move an application for grant of regular bail.   However, the 2^nd petitioner is 65 years old.  In view of the age of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the 2^nd petitioner, who is A3, on anticipatory bail.  So far as 1^st petitioner, who is A2, is concerned, I deem it appropriate to dismiss the application with liberty to surrender before the trial Court and move an application for grant of regular bail.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. The 2^nd petitioner, who is A3, is directed to surrender before the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur,YSR Kadapa District, within two weeks from today.  On such surrender, the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur shall enlarge the 2^nd petitioner/A3 on bail on a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in a like sum to the satisfaction of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur.

                                                            ..2..

The anticipatory bail application of the 1^st petitioner/A2 is dismissed.   The 1^st petitioner/A2 may surrender before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur and move an application for grant of regular bail.  In such an event, the learned Judge shall consider the bail application of the 1^st petitioner/A2 and dispose of the same on the same day on which it is filed.”

           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY  //

 for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To

1. The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District.
2. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.
3. The SHO, II Town Police Station, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District.
4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.Hyd(OUT)
5. One CC to Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)
6. One spare copy.

SAH                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

  

      

   

  

HIGH COURT

  

KGSJ

  

DATED: 03-06-2013

           

ORDER

CRL.P.NO. 4754 OF 2013

ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO

PETITIONER NO.2

DRAFTED BY: SAH

APPROVED BY:  

DRAFTED ON: 04-06-2013

  

HIGH COURT

  

KGSJ

  

DATED: 03-06-2013

           

ORDER

CRL.P.NO. 4754 OF 2013

ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO

PETITIONER NO.2